Since no atheist has seriously attempted to answer the OP questions, according to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“no equivocation wiggle roomÃ¢â‚¬Â stance, I am posing the below line of questioning, and the same rules apply:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).3- If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know, simply say Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â; because you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. This includes making statements like (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â because; you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating. 4- If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“NegativeÃ¢â‚¬Â assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating. 5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating. 6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting. 7- If you post links to other peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

Opinions are fine if they can be backed up by facts, but equivocations will not be allowed.

So do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism? Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist? ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm And, could this shift of Bradlaugh be due to the lack of a origins foundation for atheism, and therefore the need to shift the goal posts due to a lack of said foundations?

ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

No. If I say 'Unicorns exist', the burden of proof is not on you to disprove it, but on me to prove it. Same with the concept of God; the burden of proof is on the one claiming that God exists. Since there is no objective evidence, the concept of God must be taken up on faith.

No. If I say 'Unicorns exist', the burden of proof is not on you to disprove it, but on me to prove it. Same with the concept of God; the burden of proof is on the one claiming that God exists. Since there is no objective evidence, the concept of God must be taken up on faith.

That is an equivocation as per the OP's 2, 3, 4, and 5.

It is also incorrect AND the egregious use of blatant logical fallacies (i.e. Red Herring, Non Sequitur, and the Straw Man) mainly because no unicorn has yet:

ItÃ¢â¬â¢s a Red Herring because you attempted to divert attention from the crux of the argument (i.e. atheistic burden shifting) by introduction of anecdote, and/or irrelevant detail, (Introducing the unsupported Ã¢â¬ÅunicornÃ¢â¬Â argument). So basically, you argued against atheistic burden shifting, by attempting to shift the burden!

ItÃ¢â¬â¢s a Non Sequitur because your premise (there is no evidence for unicorns, there is no evidence for God) doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t follow your conclusion (Unproven unicorns = Unproven God) because you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

ItÃ¢â¬â¢s a Straw Man because you attributed (and therefore equated) an easily refuted position (the Unicorn fallacy) to my OP, one that the opponent wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t endorse, and then you proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined my actual position. But you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

Therefore: all of the above is proof (and much more) of your burden shifting and equivocation, and it is so regardless of your unwillingness to accept historical evidences. Much to the consternation of the atheist, who has no origins foundation;and it is incumbent upon him/her to shoulder the burden of their claims.

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a Red Herring because you attempted to divert attention from the crux of the argument (i.e. atheistic burden shifting) by introduction of anecdote, and/or irrelevant detail, (Introducing the unsupported Ã¢â‚¬Å“unicornÃ¢â‚¬Â argument). So basically, you argued against atheistic burden shifting, by attempting to shift the burden!

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a Non Sequitur because your premise (there is no evidence for unicorns, there is no evidence for God) doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t follow your conclusion (Unproven unicorns = Unproven God) because you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a Straw Man because you attributed (and therefore equated) an easily refuted position (the Unicorn fallacy) to my OP, one that the opponent wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t endorse, and then you proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined my actual position. But you provided no evidence to support your assertion.

Therefore: all of the above is proof (and much more) of your burden shifting and equivocation, and it is so regardless of your unwillingness to accept historical evidences. Much to the consternation of the atheist, who has no origins foundation;and it is incumbent upon him/her to shoulder the burden of their claims.

That is an equivocation Ron. There is no evidence of gods. There is evidence that people have and continue to worship gods. The two are not the same thing.

That is an equivocation Ron.Ã‚Â There is no evidence of gods.Ã‚Â There is evidence that people have and continue to worship gods.Ã‚Â The two are not the same thing.

Actually you err Jason. The above isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t an equivocation, its fact based upon the testimony and blood shed by men and women who shed that blood instead of recant what they saw and empirically tested. Just because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like those evidences, or disdain those evidences, those evidences remain none-the-less.

Having said that, if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, start a thread where we can discuss it further.

1- Claimed to be God2- Interacted with man3-provided evidenced of their claim by performing eye witnessed miracles (thus disproving your Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no objective evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â fallacy).

Following the line of logic you've demonstrated in thread thus far, you must now back up your assertion that no unicorn has:1- Claimed to be God2- Interacted with man3- Evidenced that claim by performing eye witnessed miracles

Do you have evidence to back up these claims? And no equivocating, remember!

Following the line of logic you've demonstrated in thread thus far, you must now back up your assertion that no unicorn has:1- Claimed to be God2- Interacted with man3- Evidenced that claim by performing eye witnessed miraclesDo you have evidence to back up these claims? And no equivocating, remember!

Once again, this is the display of more red herrings and non sequiturs to support burden shifting by an atheist. You are attempting to equate Unicorns with God. Yet you have failed to support Ã¢â‚¬Å“credibleÃ¢â‚¬Â eyewitnesses for your unicorns. I, on the other hand, can supply numerous Ã¢â‚¬Å“credibleÃ¢â‚¬Â eyewitnesses for the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You see, the difference is, you want to posit an (up to now) fictitious entity, in order to argue against an Ã¢â‚¬Å“eye witnessedÃ¢â‚¬Â personage (a Red Herring and a Straw Man). But that is far less than you need to be doing! You are pretending that you are arguing against a negative (despite the evidence), by using a negative (a Non Sequitur).

BUTÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I have found conclusive evidences of a Man who has done such. Therefore, I have unequivocally found, through the empirical scientific method, through logic and reason that:

1- Jesus claimed to be God2- Jesus interacted with man3- Jesus has evidenced those claims by performing eye witnessed miracles.

Now, having said that; as I reiterated before, none of that has wit to do with the OP. If you wish to discuss such, provide another thread to do so, or go to one of the many others at this forum that does so, and quit equivocating and dodging the OP.

That is an equivocation as per the OPÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s rule #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 2, 3, 4, and 5.

And you are equivocating as per the OP's rule # 2 (side tracking your original question) and 5 (this is your personal opinion, not factual evidence).

If you didn't want a response to your question (as pertaining to the OP rule #2), why ask it in the first place (assuming all intentions are honest)? I'm fine with discussing the foundations of atheism and theism, Christianity/Judaism more specifically, and who has what burden of proof ect. But if all you are going to do is shout out equivocation to every reply, it isn't much of a discussion.

Even if you could prove that all of that is true, you didn't address the root the issue; prove that unicorns aren't real.

All of the above is proof (and much more), regardless of your unwillingness to accept historical evidences. Much to the consternation of the atheist, who has no origins foundation; it is incumbent upon him/her to shoulder the burden of their claims.

But none of that is proof that unicorns don't exist. It might be compelling enough evidence for you to say that unicorns don't exist, but it is still an opinion.

Absolutely, falconeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I have looked for unicorns in every part of this planet IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been in (Which is quite extensive I might add), but I have found no evidence of said unicorn. So, by simple inductive science, and deductive logic, I have found no unicorn to make such claims.

By the rules of the OP you are equivocating #'s 3, 4 and 5. Not to mention I never said that the unicorn stated to be God, performed miracles or even interacted with humans. Although it isn't listed in the OP, this is also a straw-man argument.

Now, having said that; as I reiterated before, none of that has wit to do with the OP. If you wish to discuss such, provide another thread to do so, or go to one of the many others at this forum that does so, and quit equivocating and dodging the OP.

My apologies for such a long side tracked issue. If you would like to make a thread with relevant posts that would be fine with me. If not I'll try to post this and other relevant parts as a new thread, but not being a mod might make it difficult to show when someone who isn't me is saying something. Peace.

And you are equivocating as per the OP's rule # 2 (side tracking your original question) and 5 (this is your personal opinion, not factual evidence).

Nope, sorry 45Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ As I explained, I expanded on my OP questions, with more questions. And why? Because the original two have yet to be answered, nor have you (or any other atheist here really tried to answer them); and so far, you have failed to do anything but equivocate further.

Also, the historicity of Jesus is sufficiently backed up with factual evidence. Therefore, once again you are incorrect.

If you didn't want a response to your question (as pertaining to the OP rule #2), why ask it in the first place (assuming all intentions are honest)?

You have yet to provide a response to any of my questions; with the exception of more equivocating (as pertaining to the OP rule #2). Why ask, you ask? To see if you (amongst others, cold provide answersÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

I asked, in the first place, to see if there were any Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â answers. But, all IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve received for my efforts, are more atheistic equivocations.

I'm fine with discussing the foundations of atheism and theism, Christianity/Judaism more specifically, and who has what burden of proof ect. But if all you are going to do is shout out equivocation to every reply, it isn't much of a discussion.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cool, but the OP is concerning the foundations of atheism. Anything else (as per the OP) is equivocation, and would be better served in its own thread. Nice try at another side track 45.

HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the thingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If you continue to equivocate, it will be pointed out. If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like it being pointed out, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t equivocate.

How am I equivocating #3?

Read the OP, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re honest with yourself, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon figure it out.

Even if you could prove that all of that is true, you didn't address the root the issue; prove that unicorns aren't real.

Once again, you are incorrect 45. The unicorn fallacy was your attempt to side track the OP, because you have no answers, and have to rely on equivocations. The root issue is in the OP (which you have yet to answer). Therefore, to attempt in calling my exposing your prevarications an Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocationÃ¢â‚¬Â, is an intentional Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocationÃ¢â‚¬Â on your part. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not original, and as I expose you doing it, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not pretty either. So, until you decide to quit equivocating, and actually answer the OP, any and all your equivocations will be exposed!

My apologies for such a long side tracked issue. If you would like to make a thread with relevant posts that would be fine with me. If not I'll try to post this and other relevant parts as a new thread, but not being a mod might make it difficult to show when someone who isn't me is saying something. Peace.

Obviously, this OP is very relevant, as evidenced by the continual burden shifting from the atheist (and agnostic atheist) posters who have replied to it so far. It has gone a long way to support the OP hypothesis!

So do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assertion?

I have simple question. What attempts by atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism? Do you have examples of this (prefferrably in a linkey)? I ask because I am not entirely sure what you are asking for here.

I have simple question. What attempts by atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism? Do you have examples of this (prefferrably in a linkey)? I ask because I am not entirely sure what you are asking for here.

Nevermind I see what your line of thought is.

My line of thought??? All you had to do was read the OP, and answer the questions as per said OP. It's not really all that hard, if you honestly try.

I have simple question. What attempts by atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism? Do you have examples of this (prefferrably in a linkey)? I ask because I am not entirely sure what you are asking for here.

P.S. A thorough reading of this thread will show you many atheists attempting to dilute the meaning of atheism:

To further point out the modern atheistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s side-stepping actual atheism (and sliding into agnosticism), weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll take a look at what atheism has always ment:

Atheism - Etymology

"Etymology is the tracing of a word or other form back as faras possible in its own language; the branch of linguistics thatdeals with the origin and development of words" (Webster's).

The Historic Usage of Atheism

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia). Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).

Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is disbelief in God (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press-1986).

Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress-1996).

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).

Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).

Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no godÃ¢â‚¬Â¦(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).

Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).

Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

I get my definition of "being an atheist" from Job 38. Now show me the contradiction between my position and this copypasta: Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") Do you propose and equivalence between YHWH and Zeus?

Yeah, that's a jibe; it is also entirely honest. There is no "atheism" to define the atheist. They prefer defining their identity with "lack of belief;" I prefer to define faith as sincerity and the term "faith" as a vehicle of identity. In moral terms, the error is in thread entitlement. "Questions for atheism" would have warned this boat from this pier.

It is neither Ã¢â‚¬Å“jibÃ¢â‚¬Â (no matter which form of the definition you wish to use); nor a jibe. It is more of a Jab, using the truth of the matter, as Ã¢â‚¬Å“a-theistÃ¢â‚¬Â literally translates to Ã¢â‚¬Å“No-GodÃ¢â‚¬Â, no matter how you wish to arrive at your conclusion. And the jab lands every time, because the truth of it lands like the well-aimed shot of a champion boxer who knows his craft. And a series of these unblocked shots alone can win a fight, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s especially nice to have some knock-out hooks, upper-cuts and overhand punches to land the finishing blows.

Therefore your nautical analogies fail because they flounder like a warning dingy in a torrent.

I get my definition of "being an atheist" from Job 38. Now show me the contradiction between my position and this copypasta: Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") Do you propose and equivalence between YHWH and Zeus?

The Ã¢â‚¬Å“Copy-pastaÃ¢â‚¬Â as you are wont to describe it, are actual definitions by reputable sources. And, although I do like the fact that you are attempting to utilize Biblical verse for examples, you really ought to understand said verses so that you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t misrepresent them as you have. Job 38, when taken with the context of those verses surrounding it, and the Book of Job in general, have absolutely nothing to do with atheism at all. At best, you can claim that God is saying to Job (and his friendÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s by proxy) in essence Ã¢â‚¬Å“Are YOU God?Ã¢â‚¬Â Which would be a THEISTIC question, not Ã¢â‚¬Å“aÃ¢â‚¬Âtheistic. You would have been better of attempting to use Romans Chapter One. But you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Further, your attempted miss-analogy of attempting to correlate the God of the Bible with Zeus in the context of my assertions could not be further from the truth. Had you attempted to correlate the definition of the word atheist within the period around Christ, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d have been much closer to the point you were attempting to make. But you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, therefore your analogy failed. But, even if you had, your point would have failed anyway, for many reasons. And should you attempt to adjoin that reasoning sometime in the future; IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll show you, at that time, how it falls apart.

Yeah, that's a jibe; it is also entirely honest. There is no "atheism" to define the atheist. They prefer defining their identity with "lack of belief;" I prefer to define faith as sincerity and the term "faith" as a vehicle of identity. In moral terms, the error is in thread entitlement. "Questions for at heism" would have warned this boat from this pier.

Incorrect, there is no "atheism" to define the atheist, because there are no Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â atheists. No one can live that way because to do so would require even greater faith that that which you are already displaying currently. So, regardless of how you WISH to define atheism, your definition still fails, because you are merely flailing around in your faith-statements. As the OP required, you were to supply Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬Â to back up your assertions, not mere biographical opinions.

As such, your entire post fails the OPÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Please come back when you have Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Incorrect, there is no "atheism" to define the atheist, because there are no Ã¢â‚¬Å“realÃ¢â‚¬Â atheists. No one can live that way because to do so would require even greater faith that that which you are already displaying currently. So, regardless of how you WISH to define atheism, your definition still fails, because you are merely flailing around in your faith-statements. As the OP required, you were to supply Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬Â to back up your assertions, not mere biographical opinions.

As such, your entire post fails the OPÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Please come back when you have Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

An atheist is not defined by atheism, but rather theism. YHWH is no-god in the Grecian sense as YHWH is incorporeal and omnipresent as Holy Spirit. Shouldn't you know this stuff?

Incorrect, there is no "atheism" to define the atheist, because there are no real atheists. No one can live that way because to do so would require even greater faith that that which you are already displaying currently. So, regardless of how you WISH to define atheism, your definition still fails, because you are merely flailing around in your faith-statements. As the OP required, you were to supply facts to back up your assertions, not mere biographical opinions.

As such, your entire post fails the OP Please come back when you have facts

An atheist is not defined by atheism, but rather theism. YHWH is no-god in the Grecian sense as YHWH is incorporeal and omnipresent as Holy Spirit. Shouldn't you know this stuff?

So, in other words, you really don't want to adhere to the forum rules AND the thread OP?

Anyway, Atheism is in fact defined by those who study words, linguistics and the history thereof. Therefore, you are, once again, incorrect: Do you even remember the OP?? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll repost it here fore you:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).3- If you dont know, simply say I dont know! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) there is no God; because you said I dont know. This includes making statements like (for example) there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God because; you said I dont know. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating. 4- If you are going to make a Negative assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating. 5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating. 6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting. 7- If you post links to other peoples opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

An atheist can Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocateÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“quibbleÃ¢â‚¬Â upon the definition of atheism. But it remains a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Shifting of the burdenÃ¢â‚¬Â and nothing more. So, you can continue to do so (for a short time) if you wish, or you can actually attempt to answer the OP Ã¢â‚¬Å“factuallyÃ¢â‚¬Â. The choice is yoursÃ¢â‚¬Â¦